The Sorry State of Public Art Policy in Japan
HABU Shuichi / Journalist
March 31, 2012
Tokyo is a city of culture where the world's greatest paintings are always on display. This year alone, the scheduled lineup includes exhibitions featuring the works of famous painters such as Vermeer, Gogh, Cezanne, Matisse and Pollock, borrowed from top art museums around the world. Japan's five national art galleries serve as the venue of such large-scale exhibitions. The galleries draw enthusiastic art fans, with annual visitors to the five museums reaching a combined 4.6 million in 2009. Yet, an inside look at exhibition management reveals a gloomy picture.
One thing that surprised me after being transferred from my reporting job to the art exhibition division was the extent to which newspaper companies were responsible for these exhibitions. When I was a reporter, I had thought that when a newspaper company collaborated with a national art gallery to hold these events, the gallery did the actual work and the newspapers were only involved in advertising. However, in reality it is the business division of the newspaper company that does most of the actual work, from consulting on the selection of the artwork, arranging transportation and negotiating insurance policies to making security arrangements during the exhibition and deciding the order of the opening ceremony. Not only that, but the entire cost is being paid by the newspaper company.
Meanwhile, national art galleries collect approximately 30% of admission revenues from a joint exhibition. As a result, if the number of visitors falls short of the projected breakeven point, the newspaper sponsor loses money while the gallery makes a profit from its share of the admission revenue. In one actual case, the same exhibition resulted in a 60 million yen loss for the newspaper company while the art gallery made a 60 million yen profit.
Naturally, over the years the newspaper companies have continued to demand the museums to share the costs, and have been continuously turned down. The reason lies in the distressing circumstances under which national art galleries are forced to operate.
Ten years' ago, Japan's national art galleries were transformed into independent administrative institutions. But they are "independent" in name only, and are completely dependent on operational subsidies handed out by the government for their expenses. Lately, they have also been feeling the effects of fiscal austerity as the amount of subsidies gets smaller each year.
In addition, the government applies a quota of 1% year-on-year growth on exhibition revenues, and art galleries that fail to meet that target face cuts in the amount of subsidies they receive. Moreover, regardless of whether the quota was met or not, revenues are entirely absorbed by the national treasury, leaving the galleries with not a penny they can use at their discretion. And if they happen to generate revenues exceeding the quota, their quota for the next fiscal year will be that much higher.
I once witnessed a curator of a national art gallery moan at the sight of the long line of visitors that had formed around the gallery for a popular exhibition. He said: "Oh, no. This is going to raise our quota next year. I wish they didn't show up in such great numbers." This sounds incredible to a newspaper company that is sweating it out to attract as many visitors to the exhibition as possible. Joint sponsors they may be, but an art gallery and a newspaper company couldn't be further apart in terms of their respective position.
The root cause lies in the way the government continues to ignore the individual characteristics of each national gallery in pursuing its public art policy.
Art galleries belong to the category of independent administrative institutions along with organizations with operations that are completely alien to each other, such as the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization, the National Livestock Breeding Center, the National Printing Bureau and the Civil Aviation College. Independent administrative institutions have been criticized for serving as a hotbed for Amakudari (landing retired bureaucrats with cushy jobs) and for their operational inefficiency. They are being targeted for cost-cuts as one big group, and art galleries are no exception.
A revision of the status of individual administrative institutions is presently underway. However, the discussion is moving in the direction of integrating national institutions such as art galleries, museums and theaters that currently exist as separate incorporated bodies into a single corporation, and such a plan continues to ignore the characteristic nature of an art gallery.
In comparison, the major trend in the United States and Europe is to turn each art gallery into a separate corporation and emphasize its uniqueness. The Louvre Museum in Paris has its own corporate status and exercises discretion over its budget, personnel, purchasing of artwork and other matters. Under these conditions, the Louvre has doubled the number of visitors over the past decade. Incidentally, according to data provided by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, the Metropolitan Museum in the United States has a staff of 1,800 and the Louvre Museum has 1,300, while Japan's National Museum of Western Art has a staff of only 22.
Business conditions in the newspaper industry have deteriorated due in part to the dramatic decline in advertisement revenue, while corporate sponsorship of exhibitions has also decreased due to the prolonged economic slump. As a consequence, newspaper companies have become more cautious toward sponsoring exhibitions of foreign artwork, which involve enormous cost and risk.
Art galleries are knowledgeable about paintings but are incompetent in practical business. Financial authorities are bent on collecting revenue for the national treasury and show no understanding for art. And newspaper companies are shifting their emphasis on profitability due to deteriorating business conditions. The three players involved in art exhibitions are each riddled with problems.
Meanwhile, visitors who flock to art exhibitions in their millions each year have been completely left out of the debate.
While Japan may fall far behind the Louvre or the British Museum in terms of permanent exhibits, it belongs to the world's top class in terms of the number of visitors to special exhibits. Nevertheless, the voice of these visitors is seldom reflected in exhibition management. "Museums should offer nighttime viewings for those of us who wish to visit after work," "I wish museums had a nursery," "I would pay more for a chance to view the exhibits at a leisurely pace" - at present, such voices are not being adequately met. Exhibition managers must recognize once again the most important principle that "the viewer has the lead role in any exhibition."
Last but not least, let me call out to all art fans. Your help is essential in ensuring that we can continue enjoying the world’s great paintings in Japan and in enhancing the excitement of each exhibition. Let's join hands and work together.
The writer is chief of Culture & Arts bureau in Tokyo at Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.
One thing that surprised me after being transferred from my reporting job to the art exhibition division was the extent to which newspaper companies were responsible for these exhibitions. When I was a reporter, I had thought that when a newspaper company collaborated with a national art gallery to hold these events, the gallery did the actual work and the newspapers were only involved in advertising. However, in reality it is the business division of the newspaper company that does most of the actual work, from consulting on the selection of the artwork, arranging transportation and negotiating insurance policies to making security arrangements during the exhibition and deciding the order of the opening ceremony. Not only that, but the entire cost is being paid by the newspaper company.
Meanwhile, national art galleries collect approximately 30% of admission revenues from a joint exhibition. As a result, if the number of visitors falls short of the projected breakeven point, the newspaper sponsor loses money while the gallery makes a profit from its share of the admission revenue. In one actual case, the same exhibition resulted in a 60 million yen loss for the newspaper company while the art gallery made a 60 million yen profit.
Naturally, over the years the newspaper companies have continued to demand the museums to share the costs, and have been continuously turned down. The reason lies in the distressing circumstances under which national art galleries are forced to operate.
Ten years' ago, Japan's national art galleries were transformed into independent administrative institutions. But they are "independent" in name only, and are completely dependent on operational subsidies handed out by the government for their expenses. Lately, they have also been feeling the effects of fiscal austerity as the amount of subsidies gets smaller each year.
In addition, the government applies a quota of 1% year-on-year growth on exhibition revenues, and art galleries that fail to meet that target face cuts in the amount of subsidies they receive. Moreover, regardless of whether the quota was met or not, revenues are entirely absorbed by the national treasury, leaving the galleries with not a penny they can use at their discretion. And if they happen to generate revenues exceeding the quota, their quota for the next fiscal year will be that much higher.
I once witnessed a curator of a national art gallery moan at the sight of the long line of visitors that had formed around the gallery for a popular exhibition. He said: "Oh, no. This is going to raise our quota next year. I wish they didn't show up in such great numbers." This sounds incredible to a newspaper company that is sweating it out to attract as many visitors to the exhibition as possible. Joint sponsors they may be, but an art gallery and a newspaper company couldn't be further apart in terms of their respective position.
The root cause lies in the way the government continues to ignore the individual characteristics of each national gallery in pursuing its public art policy.
Art galleries belong to the category of independent administrative institutions along with organizations with operations that are completely alien to each other, such as the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization, the National Livestock Breeding Center, the National Printing Bureau and the Civil Aviation College. Independent administrative institutions have been criticized for serving as a hotbed for Amakudari (landing retired bureaucrats with cushy jobs) and for their operational inefficiency. They are being targeted for cost-cuts as one big group, and art galleries are no exception.
A revision of the status of individual administrative institutions is presently underway. However, the discussion is moving in the direction of integrating national institutions such as art galleries, museums and theaters that currently exist as separate incorporated bodies into a single corporation, and such a plan continues to ignore the characteristic nature of an art gallery.
In comparison, the major trend in the United States and Europe is to turn each art gallery into a separate corporation and emphasize its uniqueness. The Louvre Museum in Paris has its own corporate status and exercises discretion over its budget, personnel, purchasing of artwork and other matters. Under these conditions, the Louvre has doubled the number of visitors over the past decade. Incidentally, according to data provided by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, the Metropolitan Museum in the United States has a staff of 1,800 and the Louvre Museum has 1,300, while Japan's National Museum of Western Art has a staff of only 22.
Business conditions in the newspaper industry have deteriorated due in part to the dramatic decline in advertisement revenue, while corporate sponsorship of exhibitions has also decreased due to the prolonged economic slump. As a consequence, newspaper companies have become more cautious toward sponsoring exhibitions of foreign artwork, which involve enormous cost and risk.
Art galleries are knowledgeable about paintings but are incompetent in practical business. Financial authorities are bent on collecting revenue for the national treasury and show no understanding for art. And newspaper companies are shifting their emphasis on profitability due to deteriorating business conditions. The three players involved in art exhibitions are each riddled with problems.
Meanwhile, visitors who flock to art exhibitions in their millions each year have been completely left out of the debate.
While Japan may fall far behind the Louvre or the British Museum in terms of permanent exhibits, it belongs to the world's top class in terms of the number of visitors to special exhibits. Nevertheless, the voice of these visitors is seldom reflected in exhibition management. "Museums should offer nighttime viewings for those of us who wish to visit after work," "I wish museums had a nursery," "I would pay more for a chance to view the exhibits at a leisurely pace" - at present, such voices are not being adequately met. Exhibition managers must recognize once again the most important principle that "the viewer has the lead role in any exhibition."
Last but not least, let me call out to all art fans. Your help is essential in ensuring that we can continue enjoying the world’s great paintings in Japan and in enhancing the excitement of each exhibition. Let's join hands and work together.
The writer is chief of Culture & Arts bureau in Tokyo at Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
美術館行政のお寒い現状
土生 修一 / ジャーナリスト
2012年 3月 31日
東京は、いつでも世界の名画が見られる文化都市だ。今年も、世界中の一流美術館から借り出された、フェルメール、ゴッホ、セザンヌ、マティス、ポロックなどの有名画家の作品が並ぶ展覧会が目白押しだ。現在５館ある国立美術館が、こうした大規模な展覧会の会場になっている。２００９年の入場者総数は５館で４６０万人にのぼり、展覧会場は活気を呈している。
しかし、展覧会運営をめぐる内情には暗い影がさしている。
私が、新聞社内で記者から美術展担当部門に異動して驚いたのは、展覧会への新聞社の関与の深さだ。記者時代、国立美術館と新聞社との共催展は、美術館が展覧会の実務を担当し、新聞社はＰＲだけを担っていると思っていた。しかし、実際は、作品選定の協議に始まり、運搬、保険の交渉、会期中の警備、開会式の式次第まで、実務のほとんどを新聞社の事業部門が担当している。そのうえ、経費もすべて新聞社が負担している。
その一方で、国立美術館は共催展入場料の約３０％を徴収する。この結果、入場者数が想定より少なく採算割れすると、主催新聞社だけが損をして美術館は入場料徴収分だけ黒字になる。同じ展覧会で、新聞社が赤字６０００万円、美術館が黒字６０００万円といった実例もある。
当然、新聞社側は経費負担の共有を長年、美術館側に求めているが拒否されている。
その理由は、国立美術館の窮状にある。
日本の国立美術館は１０年前に独立行政法人になったが、「独立」といっても、必要経費は国からの運営交付金に全面依存している。しかも緊縮財政のあおりを受け、交付金は毎年減らされている。
さらに、展覧会による収入は国から毎年１％増のノルマが課せられ、達成できないと交付金を減らされる。しかもノルマ達成してもしなくても収入の全額は国庫に吸い上げられ、美術館の手元に自由になるおカネは一銭も残らないのが現状だ。さらにノルマ以上の収入をあげると、その分だけ次のノルマが高くなる。
某国立美術館の館長が、館の前にできた人気展覧会の長い行列をみて「あーあ、来年のノルマが上がるなあ。こんなに来なくていいのに」と嘆いていた光景を目撃したこともある。「一人でも多くの人に来てもらいたい」と汗を流している新聞社にしてみれば、信じられない発言だ。「共催者」といっても、美術館と新聞社では、まるで立場が違っている。
元凶は、美術館の特性を無視した国の文化行政にある。
美術館が属する独立行政法人の範疇には、原子力安全基盤機構、家畜改良センター、国立印刷局、航空大学校など、内容的にまったく異質の組織が一括して含まれている。現在、独立行政法人は、天下りの温床、非効率運営などを理由に十把一絡げで経費削減の標的にされており、美術館もこの影響を受けている。
現在、独立行政法人の見直しが検討されているが、現行では別法人の美術館、博物館、劇場の国立組織を単一の法人に統合する方向で検討が進んでおり、相変わらず美術館の特性は無視されたままだ。
これに比べ、欧米では、各美術館が法人格を持ち、各館の独自性を打ち出すのが大きな流れになっている。パリのルーブル美術館も独立した法人格を持ち、財政、人事、作品購入などについて独自の決裁権限を持っている。この環境でルーブルでは入場者が１０年で２倍になった。ちなみに文化庁の資料によると、職員数で、米メトロポリタン美術館は１８００人、ルーブル美術館は１３００人、これに対し、日本の国立西洋美術館の職員はわずか２２人しかいない。
新聞業界は広告収入の激減などで経営環境は悪化し、さらに長期化する景気低迷で展覧会への企業協賛金も減っている。その結果、新聞社側は膨大な経費とリスクを負う海外美術展には慎重になっている。
絵画には詳しいが実務能力に欠ける美術館、国庫への徴収最優先で美術への理解がない国の財務当局、経営環境悪化で採算重視の傾向を強める新聞社―展覧会に関係する三者はいずれも問題を抱えている。
こうした展覧会をめぐる論議で、置き去りにされているのが、毎年数百万人にのぼる展覧会の入場者たちだ。
常設展ではルーブルや大英博物館の充実ぶりに遠く及ばないが、企画展の入場者数なら日本は世界のトップクラスだ。しかし、入場者の声はなかなか運営に反映されない。「仕事帰りに観られるように夜間開館を」、「託児施設がほしい」、「少し料金は高くてもゆっくり観たい」…さまざまな入場者の声に十分対応できていないのが現状だ。「鑑賞者こそ展覧会の主役」との大原則をもう一度、運営の関係者は再認識する必要がある。
そして、美術ファンのみなさん。これからも世界の名画を日本で楽しむために、展覧会の感動をもっと深めるために、みなさんの協力が必要です。一緒にがんばりましょう。
（筆者は読売新聞東京本社事業局次長兼文化事業部長。）
しかし、展覧会運営をめぐる内情には暗い影がさしている。
私が、新聞社内で記者から美術展担当部門に異動して驚いたのは、展覧会への新聞社の関与の深さだ。記者時代、国立美術館と新聞社との共催展は、美術館が展覧会の実務を担当し、新聞社はＰＲだけを担っていると思っていた。しかし、実際は、作品選定の協議に始まり、運搬、保険の交渉、会期中の警備、開会式の式次第まで、実務のほとんどを新聞社の事業部門が担当している。そのうえ、経費もすべて新聞社が負担している。
その一方で、国立美術館は共催展入場料の約３０％を徴収する。この結果、入場者数が想定より少なく採算割れすると、主催新聞社だけが損をして美術館は入場料徴収分だけ黒字になる。同じ展覧会で、新聞社が赤字６０００万円、美術館が黒字６０００万円といった実例もある。
当然、新聞社側は経費負担の共有を長年、美術館側に求めているが拒否されている。
その理由は、国立美術館の窮状にある。
日本の国立美術館は１０年前に独立行政法人になったが、「独立」といっても、必要経費は国からの運営交付金に全面依存している。しかも緊縮財政のあおりを受け、交付金は毎年減らされている。
さらに、展覧会による収入は国から毎年１％増のノルマが課せられ、達成できないと交付金を減らされる。しかもノルマ達成してもしなくても収入の全額は国庫に吸い上げられ、美術館の手元に自由になるおカネは一銭も残らないのが現状だ。さらにノルマ以上の収入をあげると、その分だけ次のノルマが高くなる。
某国立美術館の館長が、館の前にできた人気展覧会の長い行列をみて「あーあ、来年のノルマが上がるなあ。こんなに来なくていいのに」と嘆いていた光景を目撃したこともある。「一人でも多くの人に来てもらいたい」と汗を流している新聞社にしてみれば、信じられない発言だ。「共催者」といっても、美術館と新聞社では、まるで立場が違っている。
元凶は、美術館の特性を無視した国の文化行政にある。
美術館が属する独立行政法人の範疇には、原子力安全基盤機構、家畜改良センター、国立印刷局、航空大学校など、内容的にまったく異質の組織が一括して含まれている。現在、独立行政法人は、天下りの温床、非効率運営などを理由に十把一絡げで経費削減の標的にされており、美術館もこの影響を受けている。
現在、独立行政法人の見直しが検討されているが、現行では別法人の美術館、博物館、劇場の国立組織を単一の法人に統合する方向で検討が進んでおり、相変わらず美術館の特性は無視されたままだ。
これに比べ、欧米では、各美術館が法人格を持ち、各館の独自性を打ち出すのが大きな流れになっている。パリのルーブル美術館も独立した法人格を持ち、財政、人事、作品購入などについて独自の決裁権限を持っている。この環境でルーブルでは入場者が１０年で２倍になった。ちなみに文化庁の資料によると、職員数で、米メトロポリタン美術館は１８００人、ルーブル美術館は１３００人、これに対し、日本の国立西洋美術館の職員はわずか２２人しかいない。
新聞業界は広告収入の激減などで経営環境は悪化し、さらに長期化する景気低迷で展覧会への企業協賛金も減っている。その結果、新聞社側は膨大な経費とリスクを負う海外美術展には慎重になっている。
絵画には詳しいが実務能力に欠ける美術館、国庫への徴収最優先で美術への理解がない国の財務当局、経営環境悪化で採算重視の傾向を強める新聞社―展覧会に関係する三者はいずれも問題を抱えている。
こうした展覧会をめぐる論議で、置き去りにされているのが、毎年数百万人にのぼる展覧会の入場者たちだ。
常設展ではルーブルや大英博物館の充実ぶりに遠く及ばないが、企画展の入場者数なら日本は世界のトップクラスだ。しかし、入場者の声はなかなか運営に反映されない。「仕事帰りに観られるように夜間開館を」、「託児施設がほしい」、「少し料金は高くてもゆっくり観たい」…さまざまな入場者の声に十分対応できていないのが現状だ。「鑑賞者こそ展覧会の主役」との大原則をもう一度、運営の関係者は再認識する必要がある。
そして、美術ファンのみなさん。これからも世界の名画を日本で楽しむために、展覧会の感動をもっと深めるために、みなさんの協力が必要です。一緒にがんばりましょう。
（筆者は読売新聞東京本社事業局次長兼文化事業部長。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟